In Re Microsoft Corp.
630 F.3d 1361
Fed. Cir.2011Background
- Allvoice Developments U.S., LLC sued Microsoft in the Eastern District of Texas alleging patent infringement based on speech recognition in XP/Vista and U.S. Patent No. 5,799,273.
- Microsoft moved to transfer the case to the Western District of Washington where its HQ, witnesses, and documents are concentrated.
- The Eastern District of Texas denied transfer, noting local interests and potential non-party witnesses outside Texas and mixed proof considerations.
- This court reviews §1404(a) transfer decisions for abuse of discretion and may grant mandamus when the district court plainly abused its discretion.
- The panel finds that most material Microsoft witnesses and evidence reside near WD Washington, while Allvoice’s relevant witnesses are outside Texas, making transfer appropriate to the Washington forum.
- The petition for a writ of mandamus is granted and the case must be transferred to the Western District of Washington.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of transfer was an abuse of discretion | Genentech framework favors transfer given witness/location realities | Microsoft shows central convenience in WD Washington | Yes, transfer required |
| Whether Allvoice’s Texas presence was manipulation of venue | Allvoice anticipates litigation connections justify Texas focus | Connections are venue manipulation like Hoffmann-La Roche and Zimmer | No; improper factor weightings considered |
| What governing standard applies for mandamus on §1404(a) transfer | Discretion must be meaningfully applied, not misused | Court may grant mandamus to correct clear abuse | Mandamus issued to transfer to WD Washington |
Key Cases Cited
- Genentech, Inc. v. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., 566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (application of transfer factors must reflect actual convenience; avoid central proximity over meaningful analysis)
- In re Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., 587 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (document-location manipulation rejected as weightless)
- In re Zimmer Holdings, Inc., 609 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (litigation-focused office locations held not meaningful for venue)
- In re Nintendo Co., 589 F.3d 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (mandamus when transfer factors misapplied)
- In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (application of §1404(a) factors in transfer analysis)
- Miller & Lux, Inc. v. East Side Canal & Irrigation Co., 211 U.S. 293 (U.S. 1908) (jurisdictional manipulation avoidance in forum selection)
- Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 130 S. Ct. 1181 (U.S. 2010) (nerve center and corporate direction factors for situs)
- Koster v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., 330 U.S. 518 (U.S. 1947) (place of domicile may be entitled to little weight where manipulation is present)